How are you so confident with regards to your claims on what women want ? How do you know this and what do you have to support this knowledge? Is it just from your conversations over coffee, reading stuff on the forum, your job, here say..what's your source?
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
plenty of polling suggests this
yougov polling as an example: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society...-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights
(Scroll just over half way down)
there are more transphobic men than women. Which is why you have far right and fascist groups supporting gender critical rallies.
Reading articles that mention polls.
not suggesting otherwise. But nonetheless women are less transphobic than men.
it’s also a generational thing. Older people are far more likely to be against trans rights compared to younger people, partly because there are likely to be more younger trans people as it becomes (slightly) more normalised. The same polling shows if you know or have spoken to trans people the more likely you will support trans rights. Like most things - racism, homophobia, views slowly change and as a society we grow, as evidenced by younger people’s far more tolerant approach.
You what? Are we going to just ignore basic biology now?
Surely you can be both biologically a man but also a trans woman? Is that not how it is? You can't change your biology after all even with hormone replacement, surgery, etc. Not trying to be a dick here but surely this is obvious?
Thanks I'll have a read.
I think the point maniak is making is around the sensitivity and inclusivity of the language being used. If you’re a trans woman, being referred to as a man in any context is going to be problematic. It’s additionally confronting because, as he says, it’s commonly used (by others) as an insult. I appreciate others may be referring to the fact a trans person is born with a sex that doesn’t align with their identity - this is why more inclusive language is usually used to describe this fact - ie trans people being ‘assigned’ their sex at birth, rather than referring to them as the very thing they are not.
Most likely some people will scoff at that kind of language, but it’s simply just a way of being respectful and inclusive.
women are generally more supportive of trans rights, i couldn't find a poll on this issue with gender crosstabs but i'd expect it would follow the same pattern. here are two othe rpolls with gender crosstabs on trans issues.
but of course, those stupid women might not yet understand what's good for them, we need men to correct their thinking:
...
Transgender wrestler forced to compete in girls tournament is booed after winning in final
Texas authorities will not let Mack Beggs compete against male wrestlers despite his requests to do so
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...forced-mack-beggs-texas-america-a8227601.html
Beggs had to wrestle in the male division in college at an NAIA program and, to my knowledge, never cracked the starting lineup.
The gap in physicality between top level female and 3rd level down the totem pole male wrestling is that big.
Good for him, he literally requested it before and after that transphobia-imposed farce on him and the women wrestlers.
If you recall, I’ve stated multiple times that I disagree with Texas’ ruling on that case.
good, i agree with you on that.
not sure why you're taking this personally given that my reply wasn't to you, it was to someone saying that "we dont have any transgender man that wants to compete against man".
I’m not taking it personally, it’s just a case that I’m very familiar with seeing as how it’s from the sport I coach for my job.
Beggs is a very interesting case study in all of this considering the absolute dominance they had over female competitors while not experiencing success vs decent male ones.
Ignoring the complexity of defining what constitutes a biological man (especially with regards to trans women), they are, under no circumstances, men.
No, I'm talking about the language surrounding the issue. Referring to a person, who is explicitly not a man, as a "biological man" is a pretty shitty thing to do, and a very common tactic of dog-whistling bigots.
A young trans girl goes through puberty as a girl, with HRT and all, and her body develops as any girl's would. Is she a "biological man" who needs to be kept out of women's sports despite having no physical advantage to speak of?
Those dastardly trans people, asking to be allowed to participate in society without persecution or ridicule, fecking over the world in the process.
This paper disagrees with that conclusion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
There are anatomical differences that are determined before birth and before the onset of puberty that have a direct correlation to athletic performance and that won’t be altered by hormone therapy.
Okay, yeah, that's fair. Seems, at the very least, they'll always have greater lung capacity and larger, more powerful hearts.
One of the theories on why some are trans speculate that it's due to high exposure to the opposite sex hormone. Would be interesting to know if that is indeed a/the cause, and how that affects prenatal development, and subsequent development. Does it mean a trans person has less of an advantage/disadvantage than a cis person of the opposite gender? Or is there no difference?
My position has always been that it's a very complex issue, with no easy answers. I don't think birth sex should matter in kids sports, or even in school sports at any level. But that's just my opinion. In professional sports, the best you can probably ever hope for is for it to be judged on a case-by-case basis, at least within the current framework.
parts of that paper (like 2.1) were reaching, others were good (like 2.3).
felt it was more useful for finding other papers. this was an interesting one (reference 80 in the original) , since it was direct research rather than a "descriptive critical review" by one person.
This was represented in the original paper as:
seems like the numbers were mixed up. and no mention of the push-up or sit-up differences vanishing.
it's fine to have a "critical review" with a point of view, but it's a bit fishy that evidence that doesn't support the conclusion is ignored.
when i clicked through the citation, i didn't go in expecting to find contradictory results, and finding that in literally the first one i clicked makes me suspicious of the rest of the paper too.
From Source 80, regarding the push-ups and sit-ups. Seems you might be reading what you want into the linked article’s motives. This excerpt from the Discussions section of source 80 supports what the linked article concluded.
“Unlike several of these previous studies, our measures of muscular strength assessed repeated submaximal efforts (push-ups and sit-ups) over a 1 min period as opposed to a single maximal effort. Our results capture differences in both endurance and strength rather than just strength and probably have more relevance to sports that require sustained effort over time rather than single explosive efforts like power lifting. Our assessments of muscular strength are also confounded by differences in weight between our transgender participants and reference populations. For example, as a group, transwomen weigh more than CW. Thus transwomen will have a higher power output than CW when performing an equivalent number of push-ups. Therefore, our study may underestimate the advantage in strength that transwomen have over CW.”
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577 (source 80’s full text)
Push-ups are an activity which were gauged, the power output is a downstream analysis.
Totally ignoring 2/3rds of the result of a quoted paper (the author could have emphasised the caveat you quoted if she wanted to keep her critical review ideologically pure), and mixing up the numbers for the 1/3rd that is quoted, is not good.
e - fyi, MDPI journals have a shady reputation with respect to peer review.
can confirm with first-hand experience too: 3 papers from my phd, one spent a year in review, one spent 2 months (both needed substantial revisions), and the one sent to an MDPI journal took 2 weeks with very minor changes.
doesn't mean this article is crap, but combined with the sloppy citation, it just increases suspicion.
Last edited:
You’ve only reinforced my previously stated belief here.
Here’s the author of the article, if curious:https://www.otago.ac.nz/healthsciences/expertise/Profile/?id=1619
Last edited:
Apparently so, which will obviously have knock on effects athletically.
I respect your opinion there, but just cannot agree with it.
Just in case you all need a guage as to how many push-up this cis woman can do it's 0... but that's just me.
Just in case you all need a guage as to how many push-up this cis woman can do it's 0... but that's just me.
You got it coach
Bit surely this case if anything proves the disproportionate gap between a biological women and a biological man, I mean he won the girls tournament and then couldn't crack the mens team
The issue really isn't with trans people though is it. It's about a group of people forcing the rest of the world to accept their version of reality/truth as an absolute fact. If they want to identify as a different gender to which they were born, I say let them go in peace and treat with them dignity, respect and non-discrimination. But surely, at the same time they can't expect everyone to ignore the basic realities of the situation.
If someone believes the earth is flat, I say good on them. All I know is that when I look at any pictures of the earth, I see a globe, a round object, whatever the dictionaries define being circular as. That is just a basic fact. Just because there are people who believe the earth is flat, doesn't make it so.
'Ignoring the complexity of defining what constitutes a biological man'....what the feck does that even mean??
I dont need a research to tell me that a transitioning athlete who used to be a nobody suddenly breaking records right left center must be having some clear advantage.
The simplest way is to install a handicap. Say you're a 100m runner. Your time would be added by 2, 3, or 4, or whatever additional second which can be derived from getting the men's and women's average time.
E.g. men's average time 11.5 while women's 12.5 then the handicap would be (+1 sec)
That way trans athletes can enjoy playing with their prefered gender and still remain competitive, or at least tried to level the playing field to not make it a joke
At least in most sport this is doable or have them competing with ranked separately for now until enough trans athletes participating
There are lots of logical compromise but it's very hard to think out of the box when even a wrong use of pronoun being labeled as phobic
The simplest way is to install a handicap. Say you're a 100m runner. Your time would be added by 2, 3, or 4, or whatever additional second which can be derived from getting the men's and women's average time.
E.g. men's average time 11.5 while women's 12.5 then the handicap would be (+1 sec)
That way trans athletes can enjoy playing with their prefered gender and still remain competitive, or at least tried to level the playing field to not make it a joke
At least in most sport this is doable or have them competing with ranked separately for now until enough trans athletes participating
There are lots of logical compromise but it's very hard to think out of the box when even a wrong use of pronoun being labeled as phobic
The discussion was about sport. It’s pretty critical to the debate that we acknowledge trans women are biological men. As far as I’m aware that covers the entire problem when it comes to trans women having advantage over cis women in sport.
I’m not going to sit here and ignore biology and live in a fantasy land unfortunately!
edit - when discussing biological advantage in sport I should say.
This is probably one of the stupidest sentences I’ve read on here in a long time.
As you seem to be one of these, it might be better. In no way is it fair that women compete phyisically against men, but as a male you dont seem to give a shit
The issue here is its being assumed people like @Carolina Red judge trans women to be biologically male in every single context of the world. That's doesn't appear to be the case to me. It's only ever a considetrstion when it's applicable to sport because of the biological advantages.
Last edited:
To my knowledge, there's no standard, agreed upon definition of what constitutes a biological male or female, hence the controversy surrounding intersex athletes and testosterone limits in women's sports.
Hence, the complexity of defining biological sex. Or you can just call it a stupid post, guess that doesn't strain your feeble mind as much.
If there are more gender categories than 2, what is the argument for trans people to compete within one of these categories?
Eh?
Im hoping people understand the difference between sex and gender.
Why is sports that are divided along gender lines not considered offensive and abolished?
Take football. Surely we should be scrapping the men's and women's teams and just letting the best players of either gender play?
Like the Brit Awards that time. We'll just have men (male-born) dominate and be fine with it, no?
Take football. Surely we should be scrapping the men's and women's teams and just letting the best players of either gender play?
Like the Brit Awards that time. We'll just have men (male-born) dominate and be fine with it, no?
I didn't assume that. I recognize there might be advantages (although as someone pointed out when we're talking about teenagers the jury still seems to be out), but in school sports I value other things rather then just win competitions.
In fact, if assumptions are being made is about what I'm saying because I keep getting replies about pro sports, when I'm talking exclusively about kids sports.
School sports can often be these teenagers livelihoods, their gateway to college. You can't just diminish that
Well quite. There aren't many sports where men do not have a considerable advantage. The guy who finishes last in every 100m men's race would usually win the women's event quite comfortably. The women's winning time that won the gold medal would have finished last in the slowest men's preliminary heat.
My point is if we allow competitions to be open to all those who identify in a particularly way, it hugely disadvantages female athletes.
There's not going to be many leading, successful female swimmers who will decide they're bored of medals and podium finishes and decide they want to compete with men and never finish anything other than last in any race ever again.
But my question is aimed towards those who think male born athletes should compete in female sports. If someone thinks that and wants those barriers removed, even having gender segregation in sports is surely something they'd rail against. If they don't think there are differences and advantages then why not throw everyone's lot in together?
There's reason why they don't want that and it's correct and obvious but they'll never admit it because if they do then defence of people born male in female sports is undermined